CHEYENNE, Wyo. (Mar. 19, 2018) – Last week, a bill that defines gold and silver specie as legal tender and eliminates all taxes levied on it became law. This paves the way for Wyoming residents to use gold and silver in everyday transactions, a foundation step for the people to undermine the Federal Reserve’s monopoly on money.

A bipartisan coalition of 11 Republicans introduced House Bill 103 (HB103) on Feb. 15. Titled the Wyoming Legal Tender Act, the new law defines gold and silver specie as “legal tender,” meaning it will be recognized as a medium of exchange for the payment of debts and taxes in the state. Practically speaking, gold and silver specie will be treated as money, putting it on par with Federal Reserve notes in Wyoming.

The law defines specie as coins having gold or silver content, or refined bullion, coined, stamped or imprinted with its weight and purity.

HB103 also prohibits the state or local governments from levying any property, sales of capital gains taxes on gold or silver specie. Wyoming does not have an income tax. However, it does have a sales tax and it assesses this tax against precious metals bullion

The Senate passed HB103 with some technical amendments by a 25-5 vote. The House previously passed HB103 by a 44-14 vote. Last Wednesday, the bill became law without Gov. Matt Mead’s signature. It will go into effect July 1, 2018.

“In effect, states that collect taxes on purchases of precious metals are inherently saying gold and silver are not money at all.”

Imagine if you asked a grocery clerk to break a $5 bill and he charged you a 35 cent tax. Silly, right? After all, you were only exchanging one form of money for another. But that’s essentially what taxes on gold and silver bullion do. By removing the taxes on the exchange of gold and silver, Wyoming will treat specie as money instead of a commodity. This represents a step toward reestablishing gold and silver as legal tender and breaking down the Fed’s monopoly on money.

Final passage of HB103 into law takes an important first step toward currency competition. If sound money gains a foothold in the marketplace against Federal Reserve notes, the people would be able to choose the time-tested stability of gold and silver over the central bank’s rapidly-depreciating paper currency. The freedom of choice expanded by HB103 would help allow Wyoming residents to secure the purchasing power of their money.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

The United States Constitution states in Article I, Section 10, “No State shall…make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.” States have simply ignored this constitutional provision for years. It’s impossible for a state to return to a constitutional sound money system when it taxes gold and silver as a commodity.

This Wyoming law reestablishes gold and silver as legal tender in the state and takes a step towards that constitutional requirement, ignored for decades in every state. This sets the stage to undermine the monopoly of the Federal Reserve by introducing competition into the monetary system.

Constitutional tender expert Professor William Greene said when people in multiple states actually start using gold and silver instead of Federal Reserve Notes, it would effectively nullify the Federal Reserve and end the federal government’s monopoly on money.

“Over time, as residents of the state use both Federal Reserve notes and silver and gold coins, the fact that the coins hold their value more than Federal Reserve notes do will lead to a “reverse Gresham’s Law” effect, where good money (gold and silver coins) will drive out bad money (Federal Reserve notes). As this happens, a cascade of events can begin to occur, including the flow of real wealth toward the state’s treasury, an influx of banking business from outside of the state – as people in other states carry out their desire to bank with sound money – and an eventual outcry against the use of Federal Reserve notes for any transactions.”

Once things get to that point, Federal Reserve notes would become largely unwanted and irrelevant for ordinary people. Nullifying the Fed on a state by state level is what will get us there.

BOSTON, Mass. (March 19, 2018) – Two bills pending in the Massachusetts legislature would expand raw milk sales in the state. Passage into law would take an important step toward rejecting a federal prohibition scheme in effect.

Sen. Anne Gobi (D-Spencer) introduced Senate Bill 442 (S442) in January 2017. Rep. Paul A. Schmid, III (D-Bristol) introduced a similar bill (H2938) at the same time. The bills carried over to the 2018 session.

The legislation would expand raw milk sales in the state by allowing farmers to deliver raw milk to the consumer.

Licensed raw milk farmers shall be allowed to deliver raw milk directly to the consumer, off-site from the farm, provided that the raw milk farmer has a direct, contractual relationship with the consumer. The raw milk farmer may contract with a third party for delivery provided that the raw milk farmer shall maintain the contractual relationship with the consumer. The raw milk farmer may deliver raw milk through a community supported agriculture (CSA) delivery system provided that the raw milk farmer shall maintain a contractual relationship with the consumer. Delivery may be made directly to the consumer’s residence or to a pre-established receiving site; said sites shall not be in a retail setting with the exception of CSA delivery. In such instances, raw milk shall be kept separated from retail items for sale and will not be accessible to the general public.

The proposed law would also authorize farmers to sell raw milk from their farm stands even if not contiguous to their raw milk dairy.

Under current law, raw milk can only be sold directly to the consumer on the site where the milk was produced.

S442 would also authorize herd share agreements for farmers with no more than twelve lactating cows and/or goats. Under these agreements, shareholders can receive raw milk from the farm.

Impact on Federal Prohibition

FDA officials insist that unpasteurized milk poses a health risk because of its susceptibility to contamination from cow manure, a source of E. coli.

“It is the FDA’s position that raw milk should never be consumed,” agency spokeswoman Tamara N. Ward said in November 2011.

The FDA’s position represents more than a matter of opinion. In 1987, the feds implemented 21 CFR 1240.61(a), providing that, “no person shall cause to be delivered into interstate commerce or shall sell, otherwise distribute, or hold for sale or other distribution after shipment in interstate commerce any milk or milk product in final package form for direct human consumption unless the product has been pasteurized.”

Not only do the feds ban the transportation of raw milk across state lines, they also claim the authority to ban unpasteurized milk within the borders of a state.

“It is within HHS’s authority…to institute an intrastate ban [on unpasteurized milk] as well,” FDA officials wrote in response to a Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund lawsuit against the agency over the interstate ban.

The FDA clearly wants complete prohibition of raw milk and some insiders say it’s only a matter of time before the feds try to institute an absolute ban. Armed raids by FDA agents on companies like Rawsome Foods back in 2011 and Amish farms over the last few years also indicate this scenario may not be too far off.

As we’ve seen with marijuana and industrial hemp, an intrastate ban becomes ineffective when states ignore it and pass laws encouraging the prohibited activity anyway. The federal government lacks the enforcement power necessary to maintain its ban, and people will willingly take on the small risk of federal sanctions if they know the state will not interfere. This increases when the state actively encourages the market and nullifies federal prohibition in effect.

We’ve seen this demonstrated dramatically in states that have legalized industrial hemp. When they authorized production, farmers began growing industrial hemp, even in the face of a federal ban. Despite facing the possibility of federal prosecution, some growers were still willing to step into the void and begin cultivating the plant once the state removed its barriers.

In the same way, removing state barriers to raw milk consumption, sale and production would undoubtedly spur the creation of new markets for unpasteurized dairy products, no matter what the feds claim the power to do.

It could ultimately nullify the interstate ban as well. If all 50 states allow raw milk, markets within the states could easily grow to the point that local sales would render the federal ban on interstate commerce pointless. And history indicates the feds do not have the resources to stop people from transporting raw milk across state lines – especially if multiple states start legalizing it. Growing markets will quickly overwhelm any federal enforcement attempts.

WHAT’S NEXT

The Joint Committee on Environment, Natural Resources and Agriculture has combined the two bills. It still needs to pass the bill out of committee for consideration in the House and Senate.

Kentucky state Sen. Albert Robinson (R-London) has been a vocal opponent of legalizing medical marijuana in the commonwealth (HB166). He has based his opposition on the Constitution’s “supremacy clause” arguing that Kentucky cannot pass a law that contradicts federal statute. Unfortunately, Sen. Robinson demonstrates a gross misunderstanding of what federal supremacy actually means. He also ignores a well-established legal precedent that makes the argument about federal supremacy superfluous in the medical marijuana debate. This is an open letter to Sen. Robinson addressing these issues.

Dear Sen. Robinson,

As the debate on legalizing medical marijuana has unfolded here in Kentucky, you have invoked the Constitution’s “supremacy clause” to argue the state cannot legalize cannabis.

I appreciate your fidelity to the Constitution, but in this case, you are operating out of a fundamental misunderstanding of federal supremacy.

During a speech on the Senate floor, you read from a letter you wrote to Sen. Rand Paul stating, “According to Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution, the Constitution and federal law are superior and supersede all other state constitution, laws and regulations.”

But supremacy clause does not say this. In fact, you left the most important word of the clause out.

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof … shall be the supreme Law of the Land”

The clause does not read, “This Constitution…and any old act Congress decides to pass…shall be the supreme law of the land.” Only acts within the scope of the federal government’s delegated powers rise to the status of supreme law. Acts outside of those powers constitute usurpation. They are, by definition, null, void and of no force.

“If a number of political societies enter into a larger political society, the laws which the latter may enact, pursuant to the powers intrusted [sic] to it by its constitution, must necessarily be supreme over those societies and the individuals of whom they are composed….But it will not follow from this doctrine that acts of the large society which are not pursuant to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies, will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such. Hence we perceive that the clause which declares the supremacy of the laws of the Union … only declares a truth, which flows immediately and necessarily from the institution of a federal government. It will not, I presume, have escaped observation, that it expressly confines this supremacy to laws made pursuant to the Constitution.”

James Iredell, a delegate to the North Carolina ratifying convention and supporter of ratification put it in even simpler terms, saying a law “not warranted by the Constitution is a bare-faced usurpation.”

St. George Tucker wrote the first extended, systematic commentary on the Constitution shortly after ratification. For nearly half a century, it was one of the primary sources for law students, lawyers, judges, and statesmen. His commentary on the supremacy clause is worth considering.

“It may seem extraordinary, that a people jealous of their liberty, and not insensible of the allurement of power, should have entrusted the federal government with such extensive authority as this article conveys: controlling not only the acts of their ordinary legislatures, but their very constitutions, also.

“The most satisfactory answer seems to be, that the powers entrusted to the federal government being all positive, enumerated, defined, and limited to particular objects; and those objects such as relate more immediately to the intercourse with foreign nations, or the relation in respect to war or peace, in which we may stand with them; there can, in these respects, be little room for collision, or interference between “the states, whose jurisdiction may be regarded as confided to their own domestic concerns, and the United States, who have no right to interfere, or exercise a power in any case not delegated to them, or absolutely necessary to the execution of some delegated power.

“That, as this control cannot possibly extend beyond those objects to which the federal government is competent, under the constitution, and under the declaration contained in the twelfth article (Tenth Amendment), so neither ought the laws, or even the constitution of any state to impede the operation of the federal government in any case within the limits of its constitutional powers. That a law limited to such objects as may be authorized by the constitution, would, under the true construction of this clause, be the supreme law of the land; but a law not limited to those objects, or not made pursuant to the constitution, would not be the supreme law of the land, but an act of usurpation, and consequently void.“

It is clear that a law not in pursuance of the Constitution is no law at all. This raises the question: does the federal government have the constitutional authority to regulate a plant within the borders of the state? The clear answer to that question is no. No enumerated power authorizes this. If you doubt this assertion, ask yourself why it required a constitutional amendment for alcohol prohibition. How is marijuana prohibition different?

Simply put, federal marijuana prohibition is unconstitutional. The states were intended to serve as a check on federal power – to ensure the general government remains within its constitutional sphere. As a state senator, you have no obligation to defer to unconstitutional federal marijuana law. In fact, James Madison said you are “duty-bound” to resist such federal overreach.

Anti-Commandeering Doctrine

But you have overlooked an even more fundamental point in this debate. Even if federal marijuana laws were constitutional, the state of Kentucky operates under no obligation to enforce them. The Supreme Court has held since 1842 that the federal government cannot compel a state to use its personnel or resources to enforce a federal law, or implement a federal program. This legal principle known as the anti-commandeering doctrine rests primarily on four SCOTUS cases with Printz v. U.S.serving as the cornerstone.

“We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the States’ officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policy making is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.”

Practically speaking, while Kentucky cannot block federal enforcement of federal marijuana laws, it is under no obligation to assist in their enforcement. The commonwealth can enact its own policies relating to marijuana and completely ignore the feds. As long as the state doesn’t actively block federal enforcement of its own law, it can enact policies contrary to federal policies. Of course, people using medical marijuana have to take the prospect of federal enforcement into consideration, but that decision rests on their shoulders.

In fact, the federal government is not enforcing federal law against medicinal cannabis users.

In 2014, Congress passed the Rohrabacher-Blumenauer amendment prohibiting the Department of Justice from spending money to prosecute medical marijuana users as long as they remain in conformity with their state laws. This remains in effect today. In short, the federal government is not prosecuting medical marijuana users in states where it is legal. In fact, they are barred from doing so.

Kentucky has every right under both the Constitution and established federal law to legalize marijuana at the state level. While I am sure your arguments relating to federal supremacy are well-intentioned, they are wrong. I hope in light of this you will reconsider your position. If you support medical marijuana, then there is no constitutional issue standing in your way. If you oppose medicinal cannabis for some other reason, simply say so. But please stop hiding behind a bastardized conception of federal supremacy.

TOPEKA, Kan. (March 18, 2018) – Last week, a Kansas Senate committee passed a bill that would exempt gold and silver bullion, and other precious metals, from sales tax, encouraging their use and taking the first step toward breaking the Federal Reserve’s monopoly on money.

The Senate Assessment and Taxation Committee introduced Senate Bill 437 (SB437) on March 7. The legislation would exempt gold and silver bullion, along with other precious metals, from state sales and compensating use tax. The bill would add the following to the list of things exempt from such taxes.

Gold, and silver coins; and palladium, platinum, gold or silver bullion. For the purposes of this subsection, “bullion” means bars, ingots, or commemorative medallions of gold, silver, platinum, palladium, or a combination thereof, for which the value of the metal depends on its content and not the form.

Committee on Assessment and Taxation approved the measure with a do-pass recommendation on March 14.

Imagine if you asked a grocery clerk to break a $5 bill and he charged you a 35 cent tax. Silly, right? After all, you were only exchanging one form of money for another. But that’s essentially what Kansas’ sales tax on gold and silver bullion does. By removing the sales tax on the exchange of gold and silver, Kansas would treat specie as money instead of a commodity. This represents a small step toward reestablishing gold and silver as legal tender and breaking down the Fed’s monopoly on money.

“If you’re for less government, you want sound money. The people who want big government, they don’t want sound money. They want to deceive you and commit fraud. They want to print the money. They want a monopoly. They want to get you conditioned, as our schools have conditioned us, to the point where deficits don’t matter.”

Practically speaking, eliminating taxes on the sale of gold and silver would crack open the door for people to begin using specie in regular business transactions.This would mark an important small step toward currency competition. If sound money gains a foothold in the marketplace against Federal Reserve notes, the people would be able to choose the time-tested stability of gold and silver over the central bank’s rapidly-depreciating paper currency.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

The United States Constitution states in Article I, Section 10, “No State shall…make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.” States have simply ignored this constitutional provision for years. It’s impossible for a state to return to a constitutional sound money system when it taxes gold and silver as a commodity.

This Kansas bill takes a step towards that constitutional requirement, ignored for decades in every state. Such a tactic would set the stage to undermine the monopoly of the Federal Reserve by introducing competition into the monetary system.

Constitutional tender expert Professor William Greene said when people in multiple states actually start using gold and silver instead of Federal Reserve Notes, it would effectively nullify the Federal Reserve and end the federal government’s monopoly on money.

“Over time, as residents of the state use both Federal Reserve notes and silver and gold coins, the fact that the coins hold their value more than Federal Reserve notes do will lead to a “reverse Gresham’s Law” effect, where good money (gold and silver coins) will drive out bad money (Federal Reserve notes). As this happens, a cascade of events can begin to occur, including the flow of real wealth toward the state’s treasury, an influx of banking business from outside of the state – as people in other states carry out their desire to bank with sound money – and an eventual outcry against the use of Federal Reserve notes for any transactions.”

Once things get to that point, Federal Reserve notes would become largely unwanted and irrelevant for ordinary people. Nullifying the Fed on a state by state level is what will get us there.

Today in 1766, British Parliament repealed the Stamp Act, after months of protest from the colonies and British merchants. On the same day, it also passed the Declaratory Act, a pronouncement that Parliament’s authority in North America was supreme and binding upon the colonies.

It declared that Parliament had the authority “to make laws and statutes of sufficient force and validity to bind the colonies and people of America…in all cases whatsoever.”

In “The American Crisis,” Thomas Paine condemned the Declaratory Act and considered its underlying idea to be the root of the conflict with Britain:

“Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as freedom should not be highly rated. Britain, with an army to enforce her tyranny, has declared that she has a right (not only to tax) but “to bind us in all cases whatsoever” and if being bound in that manner, is not slavery, then is there not such a thing as slavery upon earth.”

To many, the Declaratory Act offered no saving grace to the prevailing American position that the colonies could be taxed only by their own colonial assemblies, a precept they believed stretched all the way back to the Magna Carta. This contradictory view would force a new rift between the colonies and their mother country that would be seen over the next years.

Still, jubilant celebrations broke out all throughout North America. Some had said the king had delivered the colonies from oppression and injustice, and were ready to give adulation to the crown. New Yorkers celebrated by erecting a statue of George III on the tip of Bowling Green in Manhattan. Ultimately, the same statue would be melted down and turned into musket balls to be fired on his majesty’s forces.

After continual hostility against the taxes it attempted to levy against the North American colonies, Parliament in 1774 passed the even more controversial Coercive Acts. The laws effectively stripped Massachusetts of any political sovereignty, enacted a policy that permitted forcible quartering of British soldiers, closed the ports in Boston to all commerce, and allowed for trials of royal officials to be brought elsewhere in the British Empire in order to secure a more preferable outcome.

Richard Henry Lee described the measures as “a most wicked System for destroying the liberty of America.” Responding harshly to all resistance against taxation and circumstances considered rebellious, Britain’s conscious attempt to drain power from the colonies, and propensity to assert itself as supreme over all legislative matters, served as the primary reason the colonies drew arms against the government they ultimately chose to depart from.

Sometimes we get pushback for supporting bills that are limited in scope, or that have a lot of state-level regulation. People will say, “Why are you even bothering? It doesn’t do anything,” or, “I’m not going to support a bill that has state regulation. We need the government out completely!” Well, that might be. But…

Critics of the Second Amendment often highlight the state of technology in which it was written insofar as firearms were concerned. At the time, one-shot muskets and rifles were cutting edge military weaponry for the typical soldier. The argument goes that if the founders would have been able to look into the future, they wouldn’t have wanted private citizens to own “weapons of war.”

Unless one of them happens to have a crystal ball that allows them to communicate with the dead or they have some statement from a founding father, the claim is clearly speculation that goes against all existing evidence.

However, it highlights an interesting point that’s worth examination – the historical context.

Often when we discussed things written centuries ago, we need to appreciate the historical context. Although it’s not explicitly stated in any of the amendments, it offers us further understanding of the founders’ intent they wrote what they wrote and said what they said.

For example, the Third Amendment clearly was in response to a policy that required American civilians quarter British soldiers. However, since then the issue has rarely, if ever, been brought up, so for us in the 21st century it helps to study the differences between then and now.

Here are some points to consider about the Second Amendment.

In Colonial America, everyone was in the militia

Aside from Pennsylvania (founded by pacifist Quaker William Penn) if you were a free man between certain ages, you were required to be part of your colony’s militia. That is why the “father” of the Bill of Rights, George Mason, referred to the militia as “everyone, except for a few public officials.” Membership also required you to have a working firearm and show up to musters. In certain places, if you didn’t show up to a muster with a functioning weapon, you were fined.

The situation was utterly reverse from the debate we have today about whether people can keep and bear arms, i.e. “weapons of war.” In 1775 America, outside of one colony, you didn’t have a choice about even owning a firearm. You were required by law to keep “weapons of war” and train on how to use them.

The adjective well-regulated” in the Second Amendment meant “well-trained.”

Anyone who claims that “well-regulated” in the Second Amendment is declaring government regulations are needed on guns hasn’t read the text, is a halfwit illiterate, or simply disingenuous. The prepositional phrase in the sentence is the justification for why the right to keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed.”

The historical context explains why.

For militia (which included everyone) to be effective, it had to drill continually. The militia had to be disciplined enough to obey orders under the pressure and strain of gunfire and bombardment. The high level of preparation is what alarmed the British commanders in America to the point that they risked armed confrontation to seize the guns and munitions belonging to the militia.

It should be noted that unlike the British regular equipped with a Bess musket, Americans had Kentucky rifles, with rifled barrels that made their bullets more accurate. Whereas British tactics relied on massed volleys, Americans could target and shoot as individuals. Private citizens in the colonies had better firearms than the infantry opposing them.

The line between citizen and law enforcement officer was thin

Because everyone was in the militia, there was a sense of collective responsibility – and therefore authority – over law enforcement. There were no police departments as we think of them today with strong ties to the central government.

A civilian could be called any minute to take up arms to defend his colony or community. The kind of division we see today between citizen and law enforcement agent was similar to the relationship between British soldiers and American colonialists, who detested the presence of military troops on their streets and rightfully saw it as a sign of occupation.

America’s victory in the War of Independence was highly unlikely

Some gun rights activists argue that we need arms in the event that American citizens feel compelled to resist federal tyranny. A common response is that there is no way this can happen, because the federal government is too powerful.

Whatever the merits of this claim, it should be noted that the outcome of the American War of Independence was anything but certain. In fact, it was quite the opposite. Throughout various times in the war, it looked as though the Americans were hanging on by a thread. Washington’s crossing of the Delaware River on Christmas Day was in part a desperate move to strike a blow against the British and boost morale among his troops after several major defeats. Thomas Paine’s famous line “these are the times that try men’s soul” was written in a pamphlet appropriately titled The Crisis during the war when prospects were grim.

Few today appreciate the success of the American War of Independence because they aren’t aware of the many failed rebellions that occurred either before or after. In 1798 the Irish tried to overthrow British authority in their country, but they were effectively crushed (in part because they were inadequately armed). A similar revolution in the 1840s failed, as well. it wouldn’t be until 1921 that the Irish would win independence for the southern part of the island, and even then the Irish rebels were weeks away from defeat when the truce was declared.

To say there is no way successful resistance could happen again is to ignore our own history.

The Second Amendment was birthed out of fears over the tyranny of a standing army, not slave revolts

Recent articles have tried to make the absurd claim that the Second Amendment was inspired by the existence of slave patrols and the need for firearms to suppress slave insurrections. If this was the case, you would think it would be highlighted in the Second Amendment itself, but instead, it turns to “a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state….” to justify the people’s right to keep and bear arms.

And then we have the record of the Virginia Ratifying Convention, perhaps the most important of all state conventions. Nowhere is the issue of that “peculiar institution” mentioned as to why private citizens need firearms. Well-versed in Roman history, the delegates articulated again and again fears of a standing army destroying their liberties.

That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. (bold emphasis added).

If slavery had been the reason, they would have said so. Unlike today, they did not live in an era where they had to keep such opinions discreet.

America was not a diverse “nation of immigrants,” but highly homogeneous

It has to be said that many of the apprehensions held by gun grabbers is grounded in the anxieties that come from a heavily diverse country. They don’t know who lives among them and have no idea what they believe.

Uncertainty breeds fear of the unknown and a desire to control it.

Notwithstanding that the American colonies bickered relentlessly and this was very much responsible for their hatred of a central government, they were nevertheless very homogeneous. Immigration to America did not grow until the 1800s.

As Tom Woods explains in his book The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, American colonies were composed of people that originated from the same part of Europe, spoke the same language, adhered to the same basic cultural norms, and worshiped the same God. Those who shared the same views tended to congregate into certain colonies to be among like-minded individuals.

This is why the idea of requiring everyone be part of militia made sense then, but would strike Americans today as odd. However, this doesn’t mean the Second Amendment is no longer applicable. It merely explains the true source of anxiety among many who favor gun control.

America was a confederation of independent states, not an empire with military bases around the world

The country’s political situation today is utterly unlike what the founders had in mind, and this isn’t about its geographical size. The states were intended to be mostly autonomous with the central government confined to a few, limited powers necessary for their overall security. There was no vision of a perpetual military force occupying dozens of nations around the world.

America was supposed to be different, with no entangling alliances and no military adventures overseas offering pretext to destroy civil liberties on American soil as a direct consequence.

The discussion about whether the founders would have wanted civilians to possess “military weapons” ignores the fact that the founders never intended for America to have a large standing army.

The central government was meant to be heavily limited in scope and scale

Federalist #45 makes this as clear as a cloudless day. The powers of the feds were “few and defined.” The countless “ABC” federal agencies are unconstitutional and obviously did not exist when the Second Amendment was written, and shouldn’t exist today.

That includes the ATF and all federal gun control laws they enforce. Their dissolution cannot come soon enough.

There was no “public education” system

This issue cannot be overlooked, because the push to raise the age to purchase certain firearms to 21 is grounded in the failure modern American society to teach children via state-run education how to accept adult responsibilities when they become adults.

In Colonial America, education was as carried out locally in a decentralized manner. This meant no overarching public education policy and curriculum was imposed by a central government onto tens of millions of children as decreed by a handful of bureaucrats. This meant children were taught what they needed to do know as determined by their parents and community, not unknown figure thousands of miles away with no accountability or responsibility.

Parents were the ultimate authority, not children protective services, the welfare state, or D.C. overlords. Therefore, parents were ultimately responsible and taught their children accordingly; that education included the use of firearms. Parents taught their children to shoot at an early age and how to safely handle firearms.

That is why despite firearms existing in this country since the day English settles arrived on its shores, school shootings are a recent phenomenon. Kids in 1790 didn’t show up to their one-room schoolhouse and shoot other students.

The federal government has as little moral authority on the matter as it does legal authority

In the 1990s after the Persian Gulf War, the U.S. government imposed economic sanctions on Iraq that resulted in the deaths of half a million children. That statement is not hyperbole. When that fact was brought up to then-Secretary of State Madeline Albright on 60 Minutes, she said the deaths were “worth it,” because the U.S, didn’t like the dictator ruling that nation.

There are countless other reasons for why the feds have no moral authority to regulate firearms, even if they had the legal authority.

But this single event is sufficient to say they can go to hell when it comes to gun restrictions. They have more innocent blood on their hands for that act than all murders committed by all private citizens in America since its inception. It’d be more appropriate to let a prostitute decide what skirt length is “decent” for private high school girls to wear than the U.S. government decide what kind of firearms are “appropriate” for a citizen to purchase and own.

The right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental part of the American identity, but that right is not confined just to America

A common misconception is that the Second Amendment gives us our gun rights, hence the rhetorical acrobatics to twist the meaning of a very clear sentence. But it only acknowledges that right, which exists regardless of what a document says. Although gun culture is deeply embedded into the American identity, everyone everywhere has that same right.

The difference is that our government is legally constrained to some extent in ways other governments are not. The Second Amendment’s purpose is so there can be no debate whether the feds have the power, but that does not mean peoples outside of America lack this right, too. They can and should push for that right.

The “safety argument” for gun control is laughable

If everyone participating in a debate over gun control first had to take a truth serum, the discussion would never mention “safety” or reducing “gun violence,” because the effort to limit guns has nothing to do with either objective. School shootings are rare, and in almost every case we find government incompetence and gross dereliction of duty at every level. Urban areas suffering from high gun violence are gun control zones, while many regions with strong gun rights have some of the lowest crime rates in the world.

A year after Congress passed an “assault weapons” ban, Timothy McVeigh used fertilizer to kill hundreds of people in Oklahoma City. The 9/11 attacks were carried out with knives and hijacked airliners. In gun-control happy Europe, shootings still occur, while some terrorists have resorted to trucks and other vehicles to kill people.

If people want to kill, they won’t be finicky about the tool they use.

The “gun safety” crowd is about ensuring that government is safe to do whatever it wants, because it controls all the guns. At best, the laws are intended to make people “feel good” and give them emotional satisfaction that they “did something,” whether it is effective or not. Regardless, they ultimately want citizens utterly reliant on their government for safety and protection.

People who talk about “gun safety” believe people shouldn’t own guns for ideological reasons. They don’t want private citizens to possess them, because they can’t control them the way they could a disarmed populace. There are also many who can’t speak honestly about their vision for the country as long as people have guns.

Conclusion

The Second Amendment wasn’t meant to pit American citizens against their governments as it is now. That has come about as a direct result of the states and the federal government straying from the U.S. Constitution. If properly adhered to, the people would not only handle national defense but the enforcement of local law and order.

The discussion of what individual citizens should and shouldn’t be allowed to own is rooted in the profound atomization and compartmentalization of American culture, society, and politics. We fear what individuals next door to us own because we don’t know our neighbors anymore, because the ties that would have otherwise bound us together have been destroyed.

If anything, the Second Amendment is far from outdated. It is a testament to how far America has strayed from the context in which it was written. Love it or hate it, the reality is that the Founders would have likely not allowed things to go as far as they have before exercising their rights articulated in that amendment, against whomever was responsible for the degradation and erosion of liberty.

ATLANTA, Ga. (March 16, 2018) – A bill introduced in the Georgia House would help facilitate healthcare freedom outside of government insurance regulatory schemes.

Rep. Sam Teasley (R-Marietta) introduced House Bill 1051 (HB1051) on March 12. The legislation specifies that direct primary care agreements (sometimes called medical retainer agreements) do not constitute insurance, thereby freeing doctors and patients from the onerous requirements and regulations under the state insurance code.

The bill stipulates that physicians offering, marketing, selling, or entering into a direct primary care agreement shall not be required to obtain a certificate of authority or license other than to maintain a current license to practice medicine with the State of Georgia.

According to Michigan Capitol Confidential, by removing a third party payer from the equation, medical retainer agreements help both physicians and patients minimize costs. Jack Spencer writes:

“Under medical retainer agreements, patients make monthly payments to a physician who in return agrees to provide a menu of routine services at no extra charge. Because no insurance company stands between patient and doctor, the hassles and expense of bureaucratic red tape are eliminated, which have resulted in dramatic cost reductions. Routine primary care services (and the bureaucracy required to reimburse them) are estimated to consume 40 cents out of every dollar spent on insurance policies, so lower premiums for a given amount of coverage are another potential benefit.”

This represents the kind of cost control Obamacare promised but failed to deliver. In 2015, Tom Woods interviewed a Kansas doctor who utilizes the direct primary care model. Dr. Josh Umbehr’s practice demonstrates the cost savings possible when doctors are unfettered from the bureaucratic health insurance system.

Under Obamacare, regulations define such programs as a primary care service and not a health insurance plan, and current IRS policy treats these monthly fee arrangements just like another health plan.

A FIRST STEP

At this point, it doesn’t look like Republicans will repeal or even reform Obamacare, and the changes to the ACA proposed by the GOP would have arguably made things worse. Even with the penalty for not buying health insurance repealed by the Republican tax plan, all other Obamacare rules and regulations remain in place. Regardless, state actions can help completely bring down the Affordable Care Act, or any national healthcare plan the Congress comes up with in the future.

Oftentimes, supporters of Obamacare criticize opponents for not having any alternative. Direct primary care offers one.

These direct patient/doctor agreements allow a system uncontrolled by government regulations to develop. It makes doctors responsive to patients, not insurance company bureaucrats or government rule-makers. Allowing patients to contract directly with doctors via medical retainer agreements opens the market. Under such agreements, market forces will set price for services based on demand instead of relying on central planners with a political agenda. The end result will be better care delivered at a lower cost.

A more open healthcare marketplace within a state will help spur de facto nullification the federal program by providing an affordable alternative. As patients flock to these arrangements and others spurred by ingenuity and market forces, the old system will begin to crumble. Creating a structure for Medicaid patients to access direct primary care would likely incentivize more doctors to adopt the direct primary care model, expanding the market further.

Passage of HB1051 would take the first step toward healthcare freedom in Georgia and would create a stepping stone to further action to nullify the onerous Affordable Care act. Once in place, the people of Georgia could take further steps to fully extricate themselves from Obamacare for good.

WHAT’S NEXT

At the time of this report, HB1051 has not been referred a committee. Once it receives a committee assignment, it will have to pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.

ST PAUL, Minn. (March 16, 2018) – Bills introduced in the Minnesota legislature would reform the state’s asset forfeiture laws to prohibit the state from taking property without a criminal conviction. The legislation also takes on federal forfeiture programs by banning prosecutors from circumventing state laws by passing cases off to the feds in most situations.

A bipartisan coalition of 15 representatives introduced House Bill 3725 (HF3725) on March 14. A companion bill, SF3419, was introduced by a bipartisan Senate coalition the following day. The legislation would reform Minnesota law by requiring a criminal conviction before prosecutors could proceed with asset forfeiture and would end civil asset forfeiture in the state.

The Institute of Justice gave Minnesota’s asset forfeiture laws a D-. The state revamped the forfeiture law to require a criminal conviction in some cases back in 2014, but left the civil forfeiture procedures in place.

A federal program known as “Equitable Sharing” allows prosecutors to bypass more stringent state asset forfeiture laws by passing cases off to the federal government through a process known as adoption.The new DOJ directive reiterates full support for the equitable sharing program, directs federal law enforcement agencies to aggressively utilize it, and sets the stage to expand it in the future.

Law enforcement agencies often bypass more strict state forfeiture laws by claiming cases are federal in nature. Under these arrangements, state officials simply hand cases over to a federal agency, participate in the case, and then receive up to 80 percent of the proceeds. However, when states merely withdraw from participation, the federal directive loses its impact.

Until recently, California faced this situation.The state has some of the strongest state-level restrictions on civil asset forfeiture in the country, but state and local police were circumventing the state process by passing cases to the feds. According to a report by the Institute for Justice, Policing for Profit, California ranked as the worst offender of all states in the country between 2000 and 2013. In other words, California law enforcement was passing off a lot of cases to the feds and collecting the loot. The state closed the loophole in 2016.

H3725 and SF3419 would close this loophole in most situations by effectively withdrawing from the federal program.

An appropriate agency shall not refer, transfer, or otherwise relinquish possession of property seized under state law to a federal agency by way of adoption of the seized property or other means by the federal agency for the purpose of the property’s forfeiture under federal law.

An appropriate agency or participant in a joint task force or other multijurisdictional collaboration with the federal governmentshall not accept payment of any kind or distribution of forfeiture proceeds resulting from a joint task force or other multijurisdictional collaboration unless the aggregate net equity value of the property and currency seized in a case exceeds $100,000, excluding the value of contraband.

As the Tenth Amendment Center previously reported the federal government inserted itself into the asset forfeiture debate in California. The feds clearly want the policy to continue.

Why?

We can only guess. But perhaps the feds recognize paying state and local police agencies directly in cash for handling their enforcement would reveal their weakness. After all, the federal government would find it nearly impossible to prosecute its unconstitutional “War on Drugs” without state and local assistance. Asset forfeiture “equitable sharing” provides a pipeline the feds use to incentivize state and local police to serve as de facto arms of the federal government by funneling billions of dollars into their budgets.

CONCORD, N.H. (March 16, 2018) – Yesterday, the New Hampshire House overwhelmingly passed a bill that would prohibit the release of any information from the state’s medical marijuana registry to the federal government without a warrant. Passage of the legislation would take another small step toward nullifying federal cannabis prohibition in effect.

A coalition of five representatives – two Libertarian, two Republican, and one Democrat – prefiled House Bill 1672 (HB1672) last November. The legislation would add the following language to existing privacy protections established for patients registered to use medicinal cannabis in the state.

“Requests by federal authorities for any information relative to users of therapeutic cannabis contained in the registry shall require a search warrant issued by a judge based on probable cause.”

“I believe it would be unwise for Congress to restrict the discretion of the Department to fund particular prosecutions, particularly in the midst of an historic drug epidemic and potentially long-term uptick in violent crime.”

So far, Congress has kept the ban in place, but the administration continues to push. Passage of HB1672 would make it more difficult for the feds to prosecute medical marijuana users in New Hampshire if Sessions gets his way. It would prevent the DoJ from obtaining lists of individuals on the state registry. Under the proposed law, the feds would only be able to obtain information on specific individuals with probable cause.

Under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) passed in 1970, the federal government maintains complete prohibition of marijuana. Of course, the federal government lacks any constitutional authority to ban or regulate cannabis within the borders of a state, despite the opinion of the politically connected lawyers on the Supreme Court. If you doubt this, ask yourself why it took a constitutional amendment to institute federal alcohol prohibition.

New Hampshire’s medical marijuana program removes one layer of laws prohibiting the possession and use of marijuana, but federal prohibition remains in place.

FBI statistics show that law enforcement makes approximately 99 of 100 marijuana arrests under state, not federal law. When states stop enforcing marijuana laws, they sweep away most of the basis for 99 percent of marijuana arrests.

Furthermore, figures indicate it would take 40 percent of the DEA’s yearly-budget just to investigate and raid all of the dispensaries in Los Angeles – a single city in a single state. That doesn’t include the cost of prosecution. The lesson? The feds lack the resources to enforce marijuana prohibition without state assistance.

Passage of HB1672 would further limit that state assistance and make it that much more difficult for Sessions and his minions to enforce prohibition in the Live Free or Die State.

New Hampshire is among a growing number of states simply ignoring federal prohibition, and nullifying it in practice. Colorado, Washington state, Oregon and Alaska were the first states to legalize recreational cannabis, and California, Nevada, Maine and Massachusetts joined them after ballot initiatives in favor of legalization passed in November 2016. In January, Vermont became the first state to legalize marijuana through a legislative act.

With 29 states including New Hampshire allowing cannabis for medical use, the feds find themselves in a position where they simply can’t enforce prohibition anymore.

“The lesson here is pretty straightforward. When enough people say, ‘No!’ to the federal government, and enough states pass laws backing those people up, there’s not much the feds can do to shove their so-called laws, regulations or mandates down our throats,” Tenth Amendment Center founder and executive director Michael Boldin said.

Expansion of medical marijuana laws in New Hampshire demonstrates another important reality. Once a state puts laws in place legalizing marijuana, it tends to eventually expand. HB1672 is a perfect example of this tendency. As the state tears down some barriers, markets develop and demand expands. That creates pressure to further relax state law. This bill represents a further erosion of unconstitutional federal marijuana prohibition.

WHAT’S NEXT

HB1672 now moves to the Senate for further consideration. At the time of this report, it had not been assigned to a Senate committee.

Born to a prestigious family, he built his political career upon his role in the inception of Virginia’s first republican constitution and his advocacy for the Virginia Statue for Religious Freedom. Butting heads with Patrick Henry in the 1780s, he opposed funding for religious establishments in Virginia and favored severing the state’s connection to its own established Anglican church. Madison believed religious freedom to be one of the most important axioms of liberty, and thought that government should not intervene in the religious practices of individuals.

Along with Edmund Randolph, Madison constructed the “Virginia Plan,” a proposal for a nationalistic government model that became the basis for much of the debate during the Philadelphia Convention of 1787. Though many of the key elements of his plan were discarded by the convention, Madison, along with Randolph, was tasked with explaining the end result of the Constitution in Virginia. Additionally, he lent his effort to the ratification struggle in New York through his writings in The Federalist. Within the essays, he described the Constitution as a model that would delegate “few and defined” powers to the general government, and wrote that ratification would be a federal act, not a national referendum.

In the following years, Madison aligned with Thomas Jefferson to promote his political objectives. He helped create the Republican Party, opposed the Hamiltonian economic plan, fought against the proposed national bank, railed against the Jay Treaty, and worked to reject the Alien and Sedition Acts. His Virginia Resolutions of 1798 were adopted by the his own state legislature, which condemned the controversial acts as unconstitutional and declared that each state “have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil.” According to Madison, the states created the federal government and the Constitution was a compact among the several states, and therefore “there can be no tribunal above their authority, to decide in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated.”

As president, Madison vetoed efforts to establish unconstitutional “internal improvements” projects, presided as Commander in Chief during the destructive War of 1812, signed the 1816 tariff, and re-chartered the national bank. While not a perfect president, Madison was one of the most important men of his time and one of the most significant contributors to the early republic.

While today he is deemed the “Father of the Constitution,” Madison had initial misgivings about the document, which were noted in his correspondence to Thomas Jefferson. Truthfully, the finalized Constitution was far less nationalist and left far more authority to the states than Madison had originally envisioned. Nonetheless, Madison should be respected as someone who accepted the true ratified Constitution – a document that gave the general government a minimal amount of enumerated authority rather than the sweeping powers he once desired. Madison recognized the true product of the framework while people like Alexander Hamilton sought to undermine it.

CONCORD, N.H. (March 15, 2018) – Today, the New Hampshire House passed a bill that would require courts to fully inform juries of their right to vote “not guilty” when “a guilty verdict will yield an unjust result.”

A coalition of eight Republican representatives introduced House Bill 1443 (HB1443) on Jan. 3. The legislation would amend the current jury instruction law and require the court to explain to the jury it has the right to acquit if they believe a guilty verdict would be unjust at the request of the defendant or defense attorney.

State law RSA 519:23-a currently reads, “In all criminal proceedings the court shall permit the defense to inform the jury of its right to judge the facts and the application of the law in relation to the facts in controversy.”

If passed into law, HB1443 would amend this section to read:

“In all criminal proceedings the court shall inform the jury of its right to judge the facts and the application of the law in relation to the facts in controversy. At the request of the defendant or the defendant’s attorney, the court shall instruct the jury as follows: If you have a reasonable doubt as to whether the state has proved any one or more of the elements of the crime charged, you must find the defendant not guilty. However if you find that the state has proved all the elements of the offense charged beyond a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant guilty, unless your right of conscience dictates that the facts of the case reveal that a guilty verdict will yield an unjust result; accordingly you shall find the defendant not guilty.”

If ultimately enacted, HB1443 would help ensure New Hampshire juries understand the discretion they have the right to exercise in a trial.

“It’s an important distinction to require the court to inform the jury instead of having the defense do so,”Tenth Amendment Center executive director Michael Boldin said. “When it comes from an ‘official’ source like this, it becomes more likely that a juror will consider this option.”

Juries have the power to nullify a law in an individual case by finding the defendant not guilty, even when he clearly violated the law in question. The jury can use its discretion to determine that the law itself is unjust, immoral, or unconstitutional, and refuse to convict.

The New Hampshire case of Doug Darrell demonstrates how jury nullification works in practice. Police arrested Darrell and charged him with felony cultivating marijuana. He claimed he used marijuana for religious and medical purposes. Although he was clearly guilty by the letter of the law, the jury refused to convict.

Thomas Jefferson defended jury nullification, writing that “if the question relates to any point of public liberty, or if it be one of those in which the judges may be suspected of bias, the jury undertake to decide both law and fact. If they be mistaken, a decision against right, which is casual only, is less dangerous to the State, and less afflicting to the loser, than one which makes part of a regular and uniform system.”

Jury nullification provides a mechanism for the people to invalidate unjust laws. But most jurors don’t realize they have this power and courts rarely inform them of this option. If HB1443 passes, defendants will have the opportunity to ensure they face a fully-informed jury.

It appears the Trump administration plans to come after Idaho and try to vigorously enforce Obamacare mandates in the state.

In January, Idaho Gov. Butch Otter and Lt. Gov. Brad Little signed an executive order authorizing insurance companies doing business in the state to offer less costly plans that do not comply with all of the Obamacare mandates and requirements. At the time, the big question was whether any insurance companies would step up to the plate and offer such plans.

But the Trump administration has already indicated it does not plan to let Idaho dictate its own insurance policy if it does not conform to mandates written into the Affordable Care Act. On March 8, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services administrator Seema Verma sent a letter to Gov. Otter and Idaho Department of Insurance Commissioner Dean Cameron saying that if the state does not enforce Obamacare requirements, the feds will.

Verma concedes that Obamacare has turned into a nightmare for average Americans.

“As you know, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) is failing to deliver quality health care options to the American people and has damaged health insurance markets across the nation, including Idaho’s. Most Idahoans who did not receive federal premium subsidies have been exposed to large premium rate increases since 2014. In fact, premium rates for coverage sold through the Exchange in Idaho have increased by 91.4% from 2014 to 2018.”

Verma went on to highlight the losses incurred by Idaho insurers since the implementation of Obamacare. But she makes it clear that despite the fact the ACA has proven a total failure, the federal government must enforce it.

“However, the PPACA remains the law and we have a duty to enforce and uphold the law.”

The letter indicates if Idaho does not enforce the Obamacare mandates, the CMS will step in and handle enforcement itself.

“If a state fails to substantially enforce the law, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has a responsibility to enforce these provisions on behalf of the State.”

It doesn’t appear the federal government will take any action against the state of Idaho, but any insurance companies selling plans that do not comply with Obamacare will find themselves in the crosshairs. They could ultimately face substantial fines.

“If any health insurance issuer that is subject to CMS’s enforcement authority fails to comply with the PHS Act requirements, it may be subject to civil money penalties, as described in 45 C.F.R.§150.301 through§ 150.347. If CMS assumes enforcement authority in Idaho, CMS could shortly thereafter issue a cease and desist letter to any issuer who received approval from the state to offer Idaho state-based plans. If any issuer does not comply with the cease and desist letter by, for example, selling non-compliant plans in the State, CMS, as the primary enforcer, could initiate an investigation of the potential violation and based on the outcome, could impose a civil money penalty for each violation of up to $100 each day, for each responsible entity, for each individual affected by the violation, in accordance with 45 C.F .R. § 150.315.”

The state of Idaho has 30 days to respond to the letter.

Blue Cross of Idaho released a statement calling the letter “disappointing,” but said it “leaves an opening for [Otter and Cameron] to craft a solution to provide access to individual health insurance.”

The letter raises a couple of questions.

First, does the Trump administration have the political will to vigorously enforce Obamacare? After all, Trump ran on a promise to repeal the healthcare plan. If his administration was to crack down hard on Idaho insurance companies offering a viable alternative for the people of Idaho, it would almost certainly face significant political blowback. If Idaho stands its ground and Blue Cross of Idaho refuses to give in, it seems possible Trump would back down. The feds have a long history of sending out bullying letters and then issuing extensions, waivers and exceptions. This is why more than a decade after it was signed into law, the federal government still hasn’t managed to implement the Real ID national identification scheme.

Second, it remains unclear whether CMS has the personnel and resources to enforce insurance law in the state of Idaho. It would undoubtedly require a significant amount of funding and manpower for the federal government to do so without state cooperation. While it possibly could manage enforcement in one state, it would almost certainly become overwhelmed if multiple states followed Idaho’s lead and stopped enforcing Obamacare insurance mandates.

Based on the rhetoric coming out of Idaho, it doesn’t appear the state plans to fight the feds. All the talk revolves around working with the CMS to find solutions.

The Republican Congress clearly won’t repeal Obamacare and the Trump administration seems intent on enforcing the ACA. If Americans want to rid themselves of this national healthcare debacle, it will require state action.

But more than that, it will take individual action.

Nullification of federal marijuana prohibition worked because people were willing to engage in the forbidden activity no matter what the feds said or did. States legalized marijuana and people used that open door to build markets for cannabis. In doing so, they took on the risk of federal prosecution. A lot of people paid a high price. Some lost significant amounts of money. Some even went to jail. But eventually, it collapsed the federal government’s ability to enforce its will.

Will insurance companies be willing to face down the fed? If other states followed Idaho’s lead by reforming state law, and hundreds of insurers across the country started selling policies non-compliant with Obamacare, there is no way the federal government could enforce its law. If we can do it for marijuana, surely we can do it for quality healthcare.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions was at it again last week, insisting that the supremacy of federal law is “settled”—which is his way of saying nullification and secession are illegal. But Sessions is hardly alone in his thinking, which would be right at home on the pages of Salon or National Review. Michael Boldin of the Tenth Amendment Center (TenthAmendmentCenter.com) joins Jeff Deist to discuss how we can fight back against the cult of federal supremacy, and why decentralization is a far more pragmatic and humane way to create greater freedom than trying to win national elections.

ANNAPOLIS, Md. (March 15, 2018) – Yesterday, the Maryland House passed a bill that would ban the use of “stingrays” to track the location of phones without a court order and prohibit police from sweeping up electronic communications. Passage of the bill would not only protect privacy in Maryland, it would also hinder one aspect of the federal surveillance state.

Del.Charles E. Sydnor (D-Baltimore), along with 14 other Democrat delegates, introduced House Bill 314 (HB314) on Jan. 22. The legislation would help block the use of cell site simulators, known as “stingrays.” These devices essentially spoof cell phone towers, tricking any device within range into connecting to the stingray instead of the tower. This allows law enforcement to sweep up communications content, as well as locate and track the person in possession of a specific phone or other electronic device.

HB314 adds provisions to existing Maryland statutes limiting warrantless location tracking through electronic devices to address the use of cell-site simulators. Under the proposed law, police would be required to get a court order based on probable cause before deploying a stingray device. The proposed law would bar police from using a stingray to obtain communication content and spells out explicit criteria law enforcement must meet in order to justify such an order.

HB314 includes limitations on the use of stingrays even with a court order. These restrictions would require police to restrict the investigative use of any third–party or non-target data without a further court order. The proposed law would require the deletion of any incidentally gathered information on persons not named in the court order within 10 days.

Information gathered in violation of the law would not be admissible in civil, criminal or administrative proceedings. Information gathered on non-targeted devices would not be admissible in court under any circumstances. HB314 would also make any evidence derived from evidence collected in violation of the law inadmissible in court.

The House passed HB314 by a 102-35 vote.

IMPACT ON FEDERAL SURVEILLANCE PROGRAMS

The federal government funds the vast majority of state and local stingray programs, attaching one important condition. The feds require agencies acquiring the technology to sign non-disclosure agreements. This throws a giant shroud over the program, even preventing judges, prosecutors and defense attorneys from getting information about the use of stingrays in court. The feds actually instruct prosecutors to withdraw evidence if judges or legislators press for information. As the Baltimore Sun reported in April 2015, a Baltimore detective refused to answer questions on the stand during a trial, citing a federal non-disclosure agreement.

Defense attorney Joshua Insley asked Cabreja about the agreement.

“Does this document instruct you to withhold evidence from the state’s attorney and Circuit Court, even upon court order to produce?” he asked.

“Yes,” Cabreja said.

As privacysos.org put it, “The FBI would rather police officers and prosecutors let ‘criminals’ go than face a possible scenario where a defendant brings a Fourth Amendment challenge to warrantless stingray spying.”

The feds sell the technology in the name of “anti-terrorism” efforts. With non-disclosure agreements in place, most police departments refuse to release any information on the use of stingrays. But information obtained from the Tacoma Police Department revealed that it uses the technology primarily for routine criminal investigations.

Some privacy advocates argue that stingray use can never happen within the parameters of the Fourth Amendment because the technology necessarily connects to every electronic device within range, not just the one held by the target. And the information collected by these devices undoubtedly ends up in federal databases.

The feds can share and tap into vast amounts of information gathered at the state and local level through a system known as the “information sharing environment” or ISE. In other words, stingrays create the potential for the federal government to track the movement of millions of Americans with no warrant, no probable cause, and without the people even knowing it.

According to its website, the ISE “provides analysts, operators, and investigators with information needed to enhance national security. These analysts, operators, and investigators…have mission needs to collaborate and share information with each other and with private sector partners and our foreign allies.” In other words, ISE serves as a conduit for the sharing of information gathered without a warrant.

The federal government encourages and funds stingrays at the state and local level across the U.S., thereby undoubtedly gaining access to a massive data pool on Americans without having to expend the resources to collect the information itself. By placing restrictions on stingray use, state and local governments limit the data available that the feds can access.

In a nutshell, without state and local cooperation, the feds have a much more difficult time gathering information. Passage of HB314 would strike a major blow to the surveillance state and would be a win for privacy.

WHAT’S NEXT

HB314 will now move to the Senate for further consideration. The bill was referred to the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee where it must pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.

The House of Delegates Human Resources Committee introduced House Bill 2356 (HF2356) on Feb. 14. It replaced HF2275 sponsored by Rep. David Heaton (R-Mt. Pleasant). The legislation specifies that direct primary care agreements (sometimes called medical retainer agreements) do not constitute insurance, thereby freeing doctors and patients from the onerous requirements and regulations under the state insurance code.

According to Michigan Capitol Confidential, by removing a third party payer from the equation, medical retainer agreements help both physicians and patients minimize costs. Jack Spencer writes:

“Under medical retainer agreements, patients make monthly payments to a physician who in return agrees to provide a menu of routine services at no extra charge. Because no insurance company stands between patient and doctor, the hassles and expense of bureaucratic red tape are eliminated, which have resulted in dramatic cost reductions. Routine primary care services (and the bureaucracy required to reimburse them) are estimated to consume 40 cents out of every dollar spent on insurance policies, so lower premiums for a given amount of coverage are another potential benefit.”

This represents the kind of cost control Obamacare promised but failed to deliver. In 2015, Tom Woods interviewed a Kansas doctor who utilizes the direct primary care model. Dr. Josh Umbehr’s practice demonstrates the cost savings possible when doctors are unfettered from the bureaucratic health insurance system.

Under Obamacare, regulations define such programs as a primary care service and not a health insurance plan, and current IRS policy treats these monthly fee arrangements just like another health plan.

A FIRST STEP

At this point, it doesn’t look like Republicans will repeal or even reform Obamacare, and the changes to the ACA proposed by the GOP would have arguably made things worse. Even with the penalty for not buying health insurance repealed by the Republican tax plan, all other Obamacare rules and regulations remain in place. Regardless, state actions can help completely bring down the Affordable Care Act, or any national healthcare plan the Congress comes up with in the future.

Oftentimes, supporters of Obamacare criticize opponents for not having any alternative. Direct primary care offers one.

These direct patient/doctor agreements allow a system uncontrolled by government regulations to develop. It makes doctors responsive to patients, not insurance company bureaucrats or government rule-makers. Allowing patients to contract directly with doctors via medical retainer agreements opens the market. Under such agreements, market forces will set price for services based on demand instead of relying on central planners with a political agenda. The end result will be better care delivered at a lower cost.

A more open healthcare marketplace within a state will help spur de facto nullification the federal program by providing an affordable alternative. As patients flock to these arrangements and others spurred by ingenuity and market forces, the old system will begin to crumble. Creating a structure for Medicaid patients to access direct primary care would likely incentivize more doctors to adopt the direct primary care model, expanding the market further.

Passage of HF2356 would take the first step toward healthcare freedom in Iowa and would create a stepping stone to further action to nullify the onerous Affordable Care act. Once in place, the people of Iowa could take further steps to fully extricate themselves from Obamacare for good.

There are a couple of important economic lessons that the American people should learn. I’m going to title one “the seen and unseen” and the other “narrow well-defined large benefits versus widely dispersed small costs.” These lessons are applicable to a wide range of government behavior, but let’s look at just two examples.

Last week, President Donald Trump enacted high tariffs on imports of steel and aluminum. Why in the world would the U.S. steel and aluminum industries press the president to levy heavy tariffs? The answer is simple. Reducing the amounts of steel and aluminum that hit our shores enables American producers to charge higher prices. Thus, U.S. steel and aluminum producers will earn higher profits, hire more workers and pay them higher wages. They are the visible beneficiaries of Trump’s tariffs.

But when the government creates a benefit for one American, it is a virtual guarantee that it will come at the expense of another American — an unseen victim. The victims of steel and aluminum tariffs are the companies that use steel and aluminum. Faced with higher input costs, they become less competitive on the world market.
For example, companies such as John Deere may respond to higher steel prices by purchasing their parts in the international market rather than in the U.S. To become more competitive in the world market, some firms may move their production facilities to foreign countries that do not have tariffs on foreign steel and aluminum. Studies by both the Peterson Institute for International Economics and the Consuming Industries Trade Action Coalition show that steel-using industries — such as the U.S. auto industry, its suppliers and manufacturers of heavy construction equipment — were harmed by tariffs on steel enacted by George W. Bush.
Politicians love having seen beneficiaries and unseen victims. The reason is quite simple. In the cases of the steel and aluminum industries, company executives will know whom to give political campaign contributions. Workers in those industries will know for whom to cast their votes. The people in the steel- and aluminum-using industries may not know whom to blame for declining profits, lack of competitiveness and job loss. There’s no better scenario for politicians. It’s heads politicians win and tails somebody else loses.

Then there’s the phenomenon of narrow well-defined large benefits versus widely dispersed small costs. A good example can be found in the sugar industry. Sugar producers lobby Congress to place restrictions on the importation of foreign sugar through tariffs and quotas. Those import restrictions force Americans to pay up to three times the world price for sugar.

A report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office estimated that Americans pay an extra $2 billion a year because of sugar tariffs and quotas. Plus, taxpayers will be forced to pay more than $2 billion over the next 10 years to buy and store excess sugar produced because of higher prices. Another way to look at the cost side is that tens of millions of American families are forced to pay a little bit more, maybe $20, for the sugar we use every year.

You might wonder how this consumer rip-off sustains itself. After all, the people in the sugar industry are only a tiny percentage of the U.S. population. Here’s how it works. It pays for workers and owners in the sugar industry to come up with millions of dollars to lobby congressmen to impose tariffs and quotas on foreign sugar. It means higher profits and higher wages. Also, it’s easy to organize the relatively small number of people in the sugar industry.

The costs are borne by tens of millions of Americans forced to pay more for the sugar they use. Even if the people knew what the politicians are doing, it wouldn’t be worth the cost of trying to unseat a legislator whose vote cost them $20 a year. Politicians know that they won’t bear a cost from sugar consumers. But they would pay a political cost from the sugar industry if they didn’t vote for tariffs. So they put it to consumers — but what else is new?

I don’t always throw out or follow conspiracy theories, but what better way to get grassroots conservatives to support more and more centralized power than this?

Run the borders like a sieve for years.

Have a Republican president grant amnesty for millions.

Continue running the borders like a sieve.

Start putting the blame for the immigration problem on states and cities who enacted “sanctuary” policies after.

Call for the feds to crack down on the states and cities.

Elect some of the most hated politicians in modern times to go after the states and cities with more and more federal power.

Lose federal power to liberals and progressives over the next 2 election cycles.

Hand that power over to people who’ll gladly use it to go after cities and states that want to protect the right to keep and bear arms, health freedom, educational choice, or other approaches approved by conservatives.

At this point, we’re at stage 6. I have a pretty strong feeling it’s going to 8 – and beyond – in the coming years. Hopefully, at some point, conservatives will realize that the feds were the source of the problem in the first place, and going to the feds to fix problems created by the feds not only doesn’t work, it’s dangerous.

As the late, great Harry Browne used to say:

Government is good at one thing: It knows how to break your legs, hand you a crutch, and say, “See, if it weren’t for the government, you wouldn’t be able to walk.”